Does time exist?

[river]

So ... objects have to move to have a duration?

yes

 

[DaveC426913]

yes

Huh! All these rocks sitting around not moving - just up 'n vanished!!

 

[river]

Huh! All these rocks sitting around not moving - just up 'n vanished!!

why would they vanish ?

 

[DaveC426913]

why would they vanish ?

Because they have zero duration.

You said "duration is the movement of an object". So, no movement = no duration. Poof.

 

[river]

Because they have zero duration.

You said "duration is the movement of an object". So, no movement = no duration. Poof.

no time as well

 

[DaveC426913]

no time as well

So ... all these rocks really aren't here....

 

[river]

So ... all these rocks really aren't here....

if you throw a rock at a brick does it chip the brick ?

 

[DaveC426913]

if you throw a rock at a brick does it chip the brick ?

You're positing a moving rock.

Where would I get this rock? Since it was unmoving on the ground, it has, by your whimsical definition, zero duration. It is there for zero time.
There is no rock for me to pick up.

You really need to think these things through before posting.

 

[river]

You're positing a moving rock.

Where would I get this rock? Since it was unmoving on the ground, it has, by your whimsical definition, zero duration. It is there for zero time.
There is no rock for me to pick up.

You really need to think these things through before posting.

in your post #1066 you asked if the rocks are really there , I answered .

 

[DaveC426913]

in your post #1066 you asked if the rocks are really there , I answered .

Right. You say they're really there. And I agree.
Which directly contradicts your assertion that they have zero duration if they have zero movement.

Duration is not movement.

 

[river]

Right. You say they're really there. And I agree.
Which directly contradicts your assertion that they have zero duration if they have zero movement.

Duration is not movement.

disagree

what then is duration to you ?

 

[DaveC426913]

disagree

You're welcome to. But it holds no water unless you can defend it.
I showed the assertion to be contradictory.

what then is duration to you ?

Duration is the measure between between two points in time.

You know, you don't have to guess. These terms have well-defined meanings.

 

[river]

You're welcome to. But it holds no water unless you can defend it.
I showed the assertion to be contradictory.


Duration is the measure between between two points in time.

You know, you don't have to guess. These terms have well-defined meanings.

On what is the duration measure based ?

 

[DaveC426913]

On what is the duration measure based ?

What do you man 'based'?
If you define two points of interest in time - say, the start of a puddle of water, and its eventual evaporation - you subtract one from the other to get its duration.

 

[river]

What do you man 'based'?
If you define two points of interest in time - say, the start of a puddle of water, and its eventual evaporation - you subtract one from the other to get its duration.

based on time .

no measure involved , does the evaporation dynamic still occur ?

 

[DaveC426913]

based on time .

Well, I explicitly said it is time events that we referred to.
So, if you want to say that time is based on time, then ... sure.

no measure involved , does the evaporation dynamic still occur ?

It does. Puddles formed and evaporated before there was life to measure it.

 

[river]

Well, I explicitly said it is time events that we referred to.
So, if you want to say that time is based on time, then ... sure.


It does. Puddles formed and evaporated before there was life to measure it.

therefore duration is a dynamic between atoms and molecules , to your last statement . measure of this duration is irrelevant to the dynamics taking place here .

 

[Kittamaru]

therefore duration is a dynamic between atoms and molecules , to your last statement . measure of this duration is irrelevant to the dynamics taking place here .

Not at all - the passage of time is utterly uncaring of whether or not there is someone around to measure it.

 

[river]

Not at all - the passage of time is utterly uncaring of whether or not there is someone around to measure it.

if this true , what is the nature of time ? What is the property of time physically ?

what is physical time , in and of itself .?

 

[paddoboy]

if this true , what is the nature of time ? What is the property of time physically ?

what is physical time , in and of itself .?

The question is actually, is time fundamental?